[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Friday, 24 August 2007 at 11:17, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27:34AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 04:16 -0400, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote:
> > > Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
> > > comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
> > > 
> > > Summary: Merge Review: rpm
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226377
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ------- Additional Comments From redhat at linuxnetz.de  2007-08-24 04:16 EST -------
> > > Panu, I already did this job more or less - but for rpm5. It is less pain and 
> > > seems to work well. If next week matches, my rpm5 package should reach review 
> > > and then you can copy over bits from there to get the rpm.spec file friendly to 
> > > rpmlint (of course, there will be some warnings and errors further on, because 
> > > rpm is a special package).
> > 
> > IMO, we will not be able to avoid to have a management decision on how
> > to proceed with JBJ's rpm5.
> > 
> > AFAICT, Fedora leadership clearly has set up a clear decision not to
> > switch to rpm5 but to continue with rpm.org.
> > 
> > => IMO, there should not be any room for rpm5, may-be except as an
> > optional add-on package.
> 
> I think this decision has already been made when Jeff had announced
> rpm as unmaintained and the ball was picked up by what is now under
> rpm.org.
> 
> I think rpm5 in Fedora is dangerous. At the very least it reverses
> the ordering of letters and digits and thus breaks a ton of packaging
> techniques. Any *-1.fc8 -> *.1.1.fc8 upgrade path is busted for
> example.

Are you 100% sure? I've seen Jeff deny this on IRC.

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"